Three conditions affecting many developing countries point to
the need for urban food self-reliance programmes:
- a growing dependence on food and fuel imports [1],
- an increasing number of poor urban dwellers [2],
- a declining ability to supply their inhabitants' food
requirements through domestic production [3].

These conditions require long-term, comprehensive strategies
that maximize and enhance the productive capacity of local
ecosystems to produce food and energy, that recycle wastes and
protect and improve water resources, and that encourage
resource-conserving modes of transportation and life-style. Such
strategies are beginning to evolve in some cities. For example,
Lae, Papua New Guinea, began to implement a resource-conserving
strategy in the late 1 970s, including urban agriculture and
forestry as well as biogas production, composting, and
development of solar-energy opportunities. In the United States,
such a programme is being developed in the city of St. Paul,
Minnesota.

In the short term, however, food is a daily, vital necessity.
It is essential that city officials and others involved in
addressing the needs of the poor understand the urgency of the
food crisis for residents of slums and squatter areas. In most
cases it is not because the resources are lacking in some
absolute sense that the poor cannot meet their food needs, but
because they do not control those resources. Consequently, direct
production by the poor in cities is essential because their lack
of food is often a problem of access and not just a question of
supply. Self-help production provides either immediate access to
food grown or income to purchase it.

POTENTIAL FOR COMMUNITY PRODUCTION

Efforts to produce food in the community are already under way
in many cities worl-dwide. In fact, these efforts frequently move
ahead despite the best intentions of planning officials bent on
"modernizing" their city by removing any vestiges of
"backward" activities. In some cities, citizen food
production has become quite extensive. In Lusaka, Zambia, over 50
per cent of the residents in squatter areas surveyed were found
to have home or distant gardens 141. In Kathmandu, Nepal, about
33 per cent of the fruit and vegetable needs of the city are
estimated to be met by household production [5]. In Suva, Fiji,
approximately 50 per cent of the land of the 30-square km
peninsula where the capital is located is estimated to be under
community cultivation [6].

Food production even in very small spaces can be significant.
For example, surprisingly high yields were obtained in model
small-space home gardens developed in California (1976), Puerto
Rico (1978), Hawaii (1978, 1981), and Taiwan (1982). The
experiments produced yields ranging from 6 to 15 kg of vegetables
per square metre, or the equivalent of 66 to 165 tonnes per
hectare. In comparison, world average yields reported by the FAO
for rice are only 2.8 tonnes per hectare, and for carrots only
22.6 tonnes per hectare.

ROADBLOCKS TO ACTION

Given the need for the poor to produce food and the potential
of intensive gardening to provide both food and income, it is
important to consider ways to facilitate self-help production
projects. In reviewing a wide range of community-based urban
agriculture activities, it is apparent that often the most basic
elements of production (e.g., land, water, seeds) are lacking and
this prevents poor communities from initiating gardening efforts.

In addition to community interest, it is essential that the
key ingredients for gardening be available if a project is to
succeed: land, water, seeds and seedlings, tools (fencing and
equipment), and fertilizers. It is usually the government that
controls much of the available vacant land in cities that could
be used for gardening, as well as water resources.

Each community must develop its own solution for securing and
controlling the necessary elements for food production. It is
useful, however, to consider how several specific communities
were able to obtain the required elements in starting their
projects. Three case studies of community-based food production
analyse projects in Quezon City, Philippines; Lusaka, Zambia; and
Mexico City, Mexico.

QUEZON CITY, PHILIPPINES

Quezon City, the former official capital of the Philippines,
constitutes part of metropolitan Manila. In 1980 Matalahib barrio
in the centre of town contained two desolate squatter communities
that were the home of approximately 400 families. Housing in the
barrio was substandard. The only source of water was one
over-used public faucet. Another problem was considerable
fighting between the squatter groups, with nightly battles on a
parcel of rubble-strewn noman's-land between the housing
communities.

In April 1980 two Quezon City policemen whose jurisdiction
included Matalahib barrio decided to organize a community food
garden on the vacant land with the hope that this would reduce
the level of violence in the area. In addition, the officers
believed the project would bring the communities together to work
on the garden and provide needed food for the squatters.

The site was owned by the government's National Housing
Administration, which gave permission to use the land for
community gardening. In June 1980 the police arranged for
bulldozers to be brought in to clear the rubble off the future
garden, a process that took two weeks and produced numerous
truckloads of masonry and debris. The total area (1.5 hectares)
was divided into plots of 1 x 10 metres, and the ground was
turned to form raised beds.

Once the garden was established, the police continued to
support the project by assigning one policeman to work with each
family that expressed an interest in having its own plot. The
officers worked in their spare time in the evenings and on
Saturdays. Their assistance was augmented by the technical advice
of a local non-governmental agency, the Earthmen Society. The
Earthmen provided gardening advice, helped to bring in
agricultural experts from the University of the Philippines, and
generated attention in the local media.

Originally, seeds were obtained from a government storage
facility. When those failed to grow, gifts of better quality
seeds were solicited from private companies. Good seeds were also
collected from discarded vegetables at nearby markets. The first
crops included pechay (Chinese cabbage), mustard, sweetpotato
greens, kangkong (water convolvulus), and beans; additional crops
for the second planting included eggplant, sitao (cowpeas), okra,
and several other greens. Production soon exceeded the residents'
needs. A lively trade in fresh garden vegetables, selling at half
the normal market prices, began on the street fronting the
garden.

In addition to vegetables, the gardeners decided to plant
ipilipil (Leucaena leucocephala) around the perimeter to provide
fuel wood, the principal fuel for cooking in the barrio.
Eventually, the enthusiastic gardeners even added an area for
raising pigs. The pigs and the Leucaena leaves were helpful in
fertilizing the garden plots. Vegetable refuse and any other
organic wastes from the vicinity provided other low cost
fertilizers.

The Manila area has an average annual rainfall of 2,085 mm,
falling primarily between May and November. The only other source
of water available to the Matalahib gardeners at first was the
standpipe across the street from the garden. Consequently, the
police arranged for fire department trucks to bring water to the
site each afternoon for a number of weeks until the rainy season
started. Watering was done by hand, using watering cans. After
the rainy season, the police arranged for water hook-ups for the
garden site.

Large tools and machines for the project such as a tractor and
bulldozer were provided by the University of the Philippines at
Los Banos and by the Quezon City government. Smaller hand tools
were provided by the participants, who made a variety of
implemeets from scrap materials or used kitchen knives, sticks,
and so on. Better tools were requested from the government but
were never received. Fencing materials were also scavenged by the
community from the neighbourhood or their homes.

No paid staff assisted the project, but the policeman assigned
to assist each family provided enormous encouragement to the
gardeners in getting started. Initial gardening techniques were
improved with the technical assistance of an agricultural expert
from the University. The methods he suggested both to improve
productivity and to reduce water loss in the hottest months
involved dense plantings and staggered plantings. The latter
allowed crops to mature at different times rather than all at
once, thus providing an extended harvest period.

Technical assistance was provided by the police and
agricultural experts. In addition, the Earthmen Society played a
key role in securing seeds and materials and providing technical
expertise for the garden. Its members visited frequently, and
one, who was also a local news columnist, wrote a piece about the
residents' efforts which led to additional support for the
garden. Unfortunately, all the media coverage and even the
eventual support of the Quezon City Council did not prevent the
National Housing Authority, which owned the parcel, from deciding
to convert the site to commercial use.

In the fall of 1982 bulldozers once again appeared at
Matalahib, this time to clear the land for a warehouse. The
residents put up an initial struggle, but were unsuccessful in
keeping the site. The two squatter communities have returned to
their previous squabbling, and crime once again is on the rise in
the area.

LUSAKA, ZAMBIA

Urban agriculture has been an important part of city life in
Lusaka for nearly two decades [5, 7]. The amount of cultivation
has risen considerably in response to Zambia's severe economic
problems since the mid-1970s and to the government's efforts to
encourage urban food production. As early as 1977, Dr. Kenneth
Kaunda, the President of Zambia, appealed to Lusaka's residents
to help ease the country's economic crisis by growing more of
their own food. Today, the Zambian government has instructed all
urban councils to help their residents find land for food
production. The country's new slogan is, "Eat what you grow
and grow what you eat."

Lusaka has not always had a progressive attitude toward urban
agriculture. Until 1978 the city enforced ''noncultivation"
laws that prohibited gardening on vacant land within the city.
These laws had frequently been used to justify the destruction of
corn crops on land not belonging to the cultivator. The rationale
was that such crop production created a "health hazard"
because of the breeding of mosquitoes and the possible spread of
malaria. A decision not to enforce the non-cultivation laws
greatly increased the amount of food production throughout the
city.

In addition to increased community cultivation of
"distant gardens" on vacant land, two programmes to
encourage home garden production were initiated in the late 1970s
with the assistance of the American Friends Service Committee
(AFSC) and UNICEF. The second programme, in the township of Jack
Extension, was begun by AFSC in 1978 1980. The AFSC staff and a
local co-ordinator helped to secure a 20-hectare plot adjacent to
the township's housing area. Technical assistance on production
methods was provided, and the programme's nutritionists worked
with the community to improve knowledge of nutrition and the
benefits of home produce. Seeds and fertilizers were provided by
the project organizers.

The AFSC terminated their involvement in the project once it
was off the ground, and the leadership was assumed entirely by
the local co-ordinator, who formed a non-governmental
organization, Human Settlements of Zambia (HUZA), in 1982 to
continue the work. This organization works in low-income
settlements throughout Lusaka and carries out a variety of
projects, with financial support from European church groups. One
of HUZA's biggest food-production projects is in Jack Extension,
with 200 households involved in the pilot programme started by
the AFSC.

Jack Extension

HUZA hired project staff who lived in Jack Extension to work
with the community to help them prepare the soil and start the
gardens. Staff also visited the gardens regularly after they were
established to offer further technical assistance as necessary.
Each household had its own garden plot, on land either owned by
them or lent by the Lusaka City Council. In less than three
months HUZA located and secured land for families without garden
space. The 200 plots are each 15 x 20 metros.

The soil is fertilized primarily with chicken and other animal
manures from the area and compost, although chemical fertilizers
have also been used occasionally.

Lusaka has an annual rainfall of over 800 mm, falling
primarily between November and March. During the remaining seven
months of the year, additional water is supplied by each
household as needed. The gardens are watered with watering cans
and hoses. Those who have gardens near taps have made irrigation
ditches to collect escaping water and direct it toward their
crops. For those with no running water, a community standpipe is
located nearby. The project pays 350 kwacha per month for water.

Some seeds are donated. Additional seed is purchased by
project staff and sold to participants at cost. Usually, after
the first crop, the gardeners collect their own seeds. The most
common crops grown are rape, cabbage, tomatoes, pumpkins, beans,
carrots, okra, and maize. Most of the produce is grown for home
consumption; surplus is usually sold.

Tools are generally provided by project participants. The most
commonly used tools are hoes, picks, and shovels. Larger tools,
such as wheelbarrows, have been lent to the project by a private
agency. Some, but not all, of the gardens are fenced. Fencing was
obtained locally and made by the participants from poles and
grass.

In addition to the gardens at Jack Extension, local residents,
in co-operation with the International Union for the Conservation
of Nature (IUCN), have planted 12,000 fruit and shade trees at
homes, schools, clinics, and other locations throughout Lusaka.

MEXICO CITY

The world's most populated city presents some unique problems
for those attempting food production. Not only is available space
at a premium, air pollution severe, and rainfall only moderate
(746 mm per year), but the soil is often salty because much of
the city is located on the former bed of Lake Texcoco. The
Mexican system of food production was gradually transformed over
the past two decades into an export industry geared to meet the
demand of developed countries in the north (especially the United
States) for animal protein and out-of-season produce.
Consequently, fresh produce in the Federal District (Mexico City)
has become more expensive and must come from distant rural areas
in Mexico.

The population of the Valley of Mexico (encompassing the
Federal District and portions of the surrounding states) now
requires nearly 25,000 tonnes of food per day, and an
overwhelming majority of this amount is imported from outside the
Valley. By the year 2000 it is estimated that the need will grow
to 35,000 to 40,000 tonnes daily. These requirements and the
serious economic crisis confronting the country have spurred the
interest of both the government and non-governmental agencies in
promoting community-based gardening efforts throughout the city,
especially in low-income areas.

In the spring of 1984 a unique community gardening project was
begun in a poor area of Mexico City (Ecatepec) using hydroponics
(soilless agriculture) as an initial technique for coping with
the area's salty soil problem.

Colonia Mexico Revolucionario, Mexico City

Ecatepec is a municipality in the northern portion of the
Federal District, on land that was part of Lake Texcoco. It is a
new suburb that began as a squatter area but has now become
"official" and receives some infrastructure support
from the government. in addition, a government housing agency for
the district, Accion Urbana de Integratión Social (AURIS), is
assisting residents to obtain legal land tenure. The area is in
various stages of construction, with only partial water and
electric service. People are living in houses being built room by
room as funds permit, some with electricity and many without.
Water is obtained from communal faucets located by the roadside.
There is no natural vegetation in the area, but containers of
flowers and some vegetables and fruit trees have been placed in
front of many houses.

In 1984 several governmental and non-governmental agencies
began collaborating on a food production project in a colonia of
Ecatepec called Mexico Revolucionario. A local non-governmental
group, Promoción del Desarollo Populare (POP), provided classes
on nutrition for interested residents. These classes helped to
generate enthusiasm for the idea of a school garden. While the
plans never materialized, 1,000 square metros of land were made
available by AURIS for a gardening project.

A second government agency involved in regularizing land
tenure in the Federal District, CRESEM, became interested in the
area and made one of its community workers (promotora) available
to assist in organizing a project. The worker felt that food
production would be a good project in light of the rising cost of
food in Mexico City. Research indicated that families in the
colonia were spending an average of 30 to 50 per cent of their
income on food, with the lowest income residents spending as much
as 60 per cent.

Hydroponics was selected as the production method because of
the problems with the soil in the Ecatepec area and because
AURIS, which had had some previous experience with the system,
suggested its use to the CRESEM organizer. The Mexican Hydroponic
Society was also willing to provide the necessary chemicals and
technical support for the start-up of a pilot project.

At first the garden consisted of four long hydroponic beds
constructed from concrete blocks (used in housing construction),
lined with plastic and filled with lava rock, which is abundant
and inexpensive in the Mexico City area. Besides the lava, the
project tried sand and peat moss as growing media, but neither
worked very well and peat moss was very expensive. Subsequently,
the project added vertical hydroponic beds, which were large
tubes of plastic filled with lava with holes along the sides for
seedlings to be placed in. These were the least successful,
although items under plastic tents grew better than those planted
in tubes exposed to the sun and dust.

Seedlings were started in the greenhouse from seeds provided
by the Hydroponic Society. Eventually, seeds were secured from
crops produced and also purchased with funds provided by a
non-governmental organization, Partners of the Americas.

Some crops, such as lettuce, were relatively successful, while
others, such as tomatoes, were stunted. Greater success was
achieved with crops that were shielded by plastic
"tunnels" from the strong sun and the dust. Crops were
selected on the basis of marketability and, besides lettuce,
included onions, radishes, huazontle (a salad green), and Swiss
chard. All crops were sold to nearby markets. Revenues were
shared equally by the group.

A water tank was constructed by the community to store water
for the garden. Water was obtained by tapping into a nearby pipe,
an "unofficial" donation from the government. Watering
and fertilizing are combined in hydroponic systems, a process
that proved difficult for the community to control. The
hydroponic plant-nutrition formula came in premixed packages and
was mixed with water in a large barrel.

The formula was very expensive and had to be mixed accurately
or it damaged the plants. Each plant was han-dirrigated
individually with small watering cans. This was done daily, and
the leached water was subsequently recycled for future waterings.

In June 1985 Partners of the Americas provided a small grant
(US$5,000) to a local non-governmental agency in Mexico City,
SERVICASA, which had begun working with the residents at the
behest of the promotora from CRESEM. They provided production
materials, including the hydroponic formula, seeds, plastic for
the tubes, and plastic for the mini greenhouses. The funds were
also used to pay the small salary of the promotora from SERVICASA
to organize courses for the community on subjects ranging from
managing the hydroponic systems to nutrition. The classes were
aimed at the women and children of the colonia.

The project involved 30 families in the area. In the fall of
1985 a split in the community created by an election caused the
decline of the garden, as leaders vied over control of the
project. In addition, the difficulties of managing the hydroponic
system and the various crop failures had helped to create a lack
of enthusiasm for a production method that was beyond the
economic means of the community to manage on their own. By the
summer of 1986 little remained of the gardening effort in Mexico
Revolucionario; however, several spin-off projects in nearby
colonies were under way using traditional agricultural
techniques.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

The three gardening projects reviewed in this study were
chosen because they are typical of many similar efforts by
community groups in cities around the world. They also are
located in three entirely different geographical settings and are
in cities of widely different populations: Lusaka, 600,000;
metropolitan Manila, 9 million; and Mexico City, 18 million. In
addition, the purpose of gardening in the projects varied; the
focus in Manila and Lusaka was on produce for home consumption,
while in Mexico City it was entirely on income generation. These
differences indicate that food production can take place in
almost any location, for a variety of purposes, and in cities of
all sizes.

Of greater interest than the obvious differences between the
three projects is the question of how each was able to overcome
the key obstacles to self-help food production. The most
important points of comparison in this framework are those linked
to physical factors such as land and water, capital requirements
(e.g., tools, equipment, fencing, fertilizers), and technical
assistance (either organizational or agricultural). It is
interesting to consider the differences and similarities between
the three projects from this perspective (table 1).

TABLE 1. Key characteristics in three community
food-production projects

Quezon
City

Lusaka

Mexico
City

Land

government-owned

government, private

government

Water

rain, government

rain, government

government

Seeds

donated, purchased

donated, purchased

donated, purchased

Toots/equipment

community, university

community

non- government

Fencing

community

NA

NA

Technical assistance

government, non-government

non- government

government

Primary purpose

home consumption

home consumption, income

income

Size (hectares)

1.5

20

0.10

Rainfall (mm per year)

2,050

800

764

The most obvious similarity is the dependence of each of these
projects on the government to provide the gardening site and
supplemental water. A review of additional projects in many other
countries also indicates the importance of government support for
these two elements of project initiation. Particularly as cities
increase in size and pressures to use land for many purposes
become more intense, government assistance in locating and
providing parcels of land may be essential in initiating
self-help food programmes. For example, it is interesting to note
that the amount of land used in the projects ranged from 200
hectares in the smallest city (Lusaka) to 0.10 hectare in the
largest (Mexico City).

Water is probably equally critical in promoting
community-based food production programmes in most cities. Even
in a location such as Manila, which receives over 2,000 mm of
rainfall annually, supplemental water was needed for the
Matalahib project during the dry season. In fact, in some cities,
rainfall is so heavy during the rainy season that only limited
food production takes place at all. In the Manila project, the
government provided water by a weekly visit of a water truck; in
Lusaka's project, supplemental water was secured from standpipes
provided by the government; and in Mexico City it was indirectly
provided by the government to the project when participants
simply tapped into an existing water pipe to fill their storage
tank.

A third key production element that is difficult to obtain in
many countries is seed or seedlings to get started. In all three
case studies, seed initially had to be donated either because it
was not easily available in the community or because the project
participants could not afford to buy it. It should be noted that
the seed provided by the government for the Matalahib project
turned out to be too old, a common problem. Securing seed through
donations from the nongovernmental community, as was done in
these three cases, seems to be a frequent approach of many
gardening projects. Here again, however, seed imported from
developed countries may be too old and, in addition, may be of
inappropriate species or hybrids that do not reproduce their
traits in the second year if seed is collected. The Matalahib
approach of collecting seeds from spoiled produce obtained for
free from the market is a useful tactic for community groups
faced with no seed.

Meeting the capital requirements for specific tools or
equipment was accomplished in different ways in each of the three
projects. The project requiring the most elaborate equipment
(Mexico City) was entirely dependent on the local hydroponic
society and other non-governmental organizations to provide the
necessary materials. On the other hand, in the two projects using
traditional gardening techniques (Manila, Lusaka), all small
tools were provided by project participants. These were usually
simple instruments fabricated from available resources, or tools
that served several purposes in the home (e.g., spoons or
knives). Large tools or equipment for clearing or tilling the
land had to be borrowed in both Manila and Lusaka.

Technical assistance varied. In Manila and Mexico City,
assistance in organizing the project was provided by government
agencies, and agricultural expertise was provided by the
non-governmental community as well as by local universities. Both
non government and government agencies included nutrition classes
as part of their technical assistance in Mexico City and Lusaka.

All three projects, as well as many similar efforts in other
cities, illustrate the need for effective technical assistance in
self-help gardening efforts. Unfortunately, the assistance many
groups receive is often misguided or even detrimental in terms of
promoting self-reliance. For example, the promotora from the
government housing agency in Mexico City and the key
non-government organization involved were skilled community
organizers but were not knowledgeable about agriculture.
Consequently, the gardening technique selected "hydroponics)
was based on only minimal information that they were given by a
proponent of hydroponics. Ultimately, the method was very
difficult for the community to manage, and helped to create a
sense of failure among participants that led to the demise of the
effort.

Even the project in Mexico City, however, should be considered
in the context of its accomplishments given a very difficult
environmental setting and the selection of an inappropriate
production technique for a low-income community. Local residents
not only organized themselves to build the hydroponic beds but
managed to generate enough produce to sell despite problems in
mixing the nutrient formula. Participants also devised a clever
technique to stretch the nutrient formula by watering the lava
rock in advance so that less formula would be required when
applied in the second watering.

Two of the three projects considered, Manila and Mexico City,
are now defunct. Nonetheless, all of the projects provide
important lessons for policy-makers faced with the need to
improve food supplies in low-income urban communities and/or to
improve nutritional levels. The problem of access by the poor to
basic production elements, especially land and water, indicates
that some degree of government support is needed if self-help
food production is to be realized in many instances. Once given
this assistance, it is apparent low-income communities and the
nongovernmental community can accomplish a great deal on their
own.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In designing a strategy to meet basic food needs, some
initiatives should clearly receive higher priority for
implementation than others, depending on the specific conditions
of a city. Because space is a critical requirement in
agriculture, progressive land-use policies must form the backbone
of programmes to encourage production now and in the future.

Consequently, cities can begin the process of improving food
self-reliance by reviewing existing landuse policies and
instituting new ones that encourage rather than discourage food
production. Four basic guidelines will be helpful in this
process: plan for temporary land use, multiple use of land,
maximum use of land, and upgrading of low-income areas.

Indeed, poor communities already operate within these
guidelines as much as possible but are frequently stymied by city
policies that discourage self help. City governments have spent
millions of dollars on efforts at removing slums instead of
assisting the poor with attempts to improve their communities.

Policies to promote temporary use of open space can be of
significant value in fostering home or market gardening. Any
available land, especially that located near poor communities,
can produce much-needed food or generate income for the poor,
even for just a season.

Planning for mixed land use in cities also makes good sense in
the short term and for the future. Many existing uses of space in
cities are inefficient and could easily be combined with
gardening to increase the output from suitable parcels. Good
opportunities for gardening exist at many schools, factories,
churches, military installations. airports, and government agency
headquarters and along transportation rights of way. Multiple use
of urban space should not be regarded as a stopgap measure to be
applied only until food supplies are adequate but rather as a
long term strategy to improve economic efficiencies per land unit
and also to improve the aesthetic quality of commercial and
residential areas.

Strategies to promote community-based food production should
encompass policies to require production space in new housing
developments, including rooftop and balcony gardening where
feasible. Programmes to assist the modification of existing
housing or even office structures to allow ground level or
upper-level intensive gardening can also be initiated at minimal
cost. Finally, city officials can encourage food production in
the upgrading process carried out officially or unofficially in
low-income communities. Design assistance can be provided to
accommodate food production in the rearranged community.

A second area of policy with tremendous impact on agricultural
production is water control. Planning of drainage, flood control,
water transport, and water distribution provides governments with
strong tools to maintain or change agricultural conditions within
urban areas. For community-based production, the availability of
even a temporary water source such as a water truck can make the
difference in realizing a gardening project. To encourage
production in high need areas, including squatter areas intended
for later development, the provision of a public water tap to
gardening sites is a necessary requirement for year-round
gardening.

At a larger scale of production, government water policies can
provide importance incentives for market gardening. The cost of
water to agricultural holdings on the urban fringe can be
subsidized; programmes to assist farmers with irrigation and
drainage needs can encourage production by market gardeners; and
water-transport systems can be established to facilitate delivery
of food from farms to market.

A third critical policy area for agriculture in cities is
waste management. Low-cost fertilizer is in great demand by both
home and market gardeners. At the same time, the problem of waste
disposal in many cities has become enormous. Yet much of the
solid waste in cities of developing countries is composed largely
of organic material that could be composted and used for
agricultural purposes. Microcomposting facilities could be
established at community garden sites, while larger processing
centres, including waste treatment ponds for animal and perhaps
human waste, could be located at farms on the city outskirts.
Farmers would thus have processed waste as fertilizer.

The impetus needed for these kinds of programmes and policies
does not depend on arousing community interest in food
production. The poor are already taking the initiative to produce
their own food wherever possible in cities around the world, and
market gardeners will produce food as long as it is profitable to
do so. Nor are large sums of money or new government institutions
required. Rather, a reorientation of existing resources and
programmes to include agricultural planning in urban areas is
necessary, together with more flexible land-use, water, and
waste-management policies that promote community food production.
Production alone cannot solve all the problems of urban food
systems, but it can improve the access of millions of urban poor
to needed food supplies.